Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.

XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I read the article. It’s the same old excuses about “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”

    Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits.

    There was also a study done that proved breeding aggressive animal lines made their progeny even more aggressive. And docile more docile.

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/whos-a-good-fox-soviet-experiment-reveals-genetic-roots-of-behavior

    • hiddengoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

      From an organization that does temperament tests.

      This is the percentage of tested animals that pass their temperament tests.

      AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER - 87.6%
      AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER - 85.7%

      OH NOES! 15% don’t pass! How horrific are these beasts?

      AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG - 80.2%
      AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD - 82.5%
      CHOW CHOW - 71.7%
      COCKER SPANIEL - 82.4%
      DOBERMAN PINSCHER - 80.1%
      GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG - 85.7%
      GOLDEN RETRIEVER - 85.9%
      GREAT DANE - 82.7%
      MIXED BREED - 86.6%
      ROTTWEILER - 85.0%
      WEIMARANER - 80.8%

      This is a selection of fairly common dogs and the Weimaraner because I did NOT expect to see that kind of failure rate from those guys. Every one of them I’ve met has been incredibly patient. I include the chow chow to show an extreme outlier. That’s the lowest score I found with around a hundred or more animals tested. In that case it was 99, but that’s close enough for comparison.

      So what does this show? Clearly, Aussie dogs all need to be destroyed. They’re far more temperamental and dangerous than pit bulls. Chow chow? Burn them in cleansing fire.

      Incidentally, I included the cocker spaniel because that narrative of them being more dangerous than pit bulls follows my personal biases from my own anecdotal experiences. I’ve been bitten by three dogs, all cocker spaniels, all injured me to some extent. But nobody reports the cocker spaniel bite, no matter how bloody it is. You just clean it up and get on with your life because you got bit by a cocker spaniel you fucking pussy. On the other hand, I’ve been aggressively run at by numerous pit bulls and have thus far escaped with only considerable amounts of drool on me after a seriously violent request for pets ended in a belly rub massacre.

      Anecdote, however, is not the singular form of data.

      • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Temperament does not equate to ability and preponderance to cause severe injury or death.

        • hiddengoat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s literally what it fucking is.

          https://atts.org/about-temperament/

          “the sum total of all inborn and acquired physical and mental traits and talents which determines, forms and regulates behavior in the environment”

          And again, if you’re ACTUALLY worried about severe injury or death then you’ll be focused on significantly more dangerous breeds such as chows and shar-peis. But you’re likely not and just want to say “PIT BULL BAD” because you don’t understand how statistics work.

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also, no your link does not say temperament is propensity to attack. A dog can fail the temperament test because it is shy or nervous, as per your own link.

            • hiddengoat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Both of which are indicators that a dog may be fearful and prone to attack if it feels threatened. If you know nothing about dog behavior, why are you here?

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are really stretching the words may be a lot here. Most fearful dogs are more likely to run away, and will only attack if cornered with no other way out. Seems you’re the one who doesn’t know about dog behavior, would explain why your a pitbull apologist.

                • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s patently untrue. A fearful dog is very likely to be reactive, and that reaction will vary based on many different things, both personal to the dog and to the context of the situation. Fight or flight is a common way of remembering that.

                  And a dog (or any creature) in a reactive mode is dangerous.

                  You sound out of your depth here bud…almost reactionary.

                  • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nope, spent my whole life around dogs. Fearful dogs are very unlikely to attack, they’re nothing like aggressive dogs.

                • hiddengoat@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My guy, you are nowhere near as smart as your mother told you all those years ago.

                  Live with it.

                  • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My guy, I really am very smart. 99th percentile or so through my PhD, and into my well published scientific career.

                    Pitbulls suck and we need to stop breeding them, live with it.

            • hiddengoat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Okay, now learn to divide.

              https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

              CDC, the people that actually track this shit, states 468 deaths from dog attacks in the US between 2011-2021.

              So about 45 on average per year. The exact number is about to be irrelevant.

              You want to lump all pit bull breeds together? Okay, let’s say they’re responsible for that TERRIFYING 70% of all attacks you pulled out of your ass elsewhere.

              70% of 468 is 327.6. OMG SO DANGEROUS! Until you learn to fucking divide.

              https://humanesocietytampa.org/pit-bulls-are-2023s-1-breed-in-the-united-states/
              “In 2023, pit bulls are the number one breed in the United States, and it is estimated that there are about 18 million pit bulls across the country.”

              327.6 divided by 18,000,000 means that you have a 0.0000182 chance of a given pit bull being responsible for a fatal attack.

              And that’s if you’re a disingenuous twat and smash all pit bull breeds together, which you would absolutely never do for all breeds with “shepherd” or “retriever” in their name.

              There is literally no reason for anyone to fear any dog that is properly trained and not raised by shitheads, and every reason to fear ANY dog that is not.

              It’s not by coincidence that the only dogs that have ever bitten me were all cocker spaniels. They’re almost universally owned by people that see them as cute and fluffy lap dogs despite them being considerable size and ill tempered when not trained properly. Do I like them? No. Would I ever want to ban them? Also no, because I’m not a fucking idiot.

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Pitbulls dominate the list of fatal dog attacks:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks

                And yet they only account for about 6% of owned dogs. They are more dangerous than other breeds, vastly more so in fact. And just because dogs only kill a few dozen people each year, there is no reason not to eliminate the majority of that source of deaths.

                And I’ve had friends attacked by “well-trained” and friendly pitbulls. Really nice neck scars they got from that super duper lovely little pibble. Don’t know anyone injured by any other breed.

                And how many cocker spaniels have killed people? I;m seeing zero on the list of attacks.

    • Forester@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And there it is people Good old American racism.

      I’m certain you’ve also followed the Russian experiment where they managed to take wild foxes and domesticate them in under 50 generations and now you can adopt one as a pet. So what you’re telling me is that a dog that has been with humanity for over 10,000 years and then went through a period of roughly 300 years of pit fighting is irrepidly damaged but the fox that went through 15,000 years of being a fox It’s just magically now perfect pet in under 100 years. And you’re telling me that it’s genetics and not nurturing and raising the animal that has an impact okay…

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, to my understanding, those domestic foxes, while tame, are still not quite so perfect of pets as animals that have been bred for longer like dogs are. Though there is no reason it can’t be both, while a dog raised to be aggressive will probably be aggressive, and one raised well should be far less likely to be, it’s not fair to say that there is no genetic basis for friendliness and aggression, else there would be no need for domestication in the first place. A lot of selective breeding can be done in century, so the past few centuries of what an animal has been selectively bred for probably matter a bit more than the centuries before that, to a point anyway. I doubt anyone is really arguing that pit bulls are irreparably damaged as a whole either, but if an animal has been bred for aggression for awhile, undoing that is going to require breeding for the reverse, or crossbreeding with another line that does not have that trait and selecting offspring that do not display it, or similar.

        I’m not really sure what stance to take on pitbulls and similar breeds myself, I’ve known some people with rather nice ones and it seems to me that any law targeting a specific dog breed is going to be somewhat impractical given that breeds are “fuzzy” categories with ill defined edges, not clear and sharply defined, so determining what animals are close to pitbulls but are not quite, and which are considered to be pitbulls, but barely, is going to be a very difficult line to reliably draw.

        • Forester@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look up the search terms rat poison and pitbulls and get back to me on the fact that people don’t hate them.

          • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t say anything about people not hating them, clearly many people don’t like them, but that doesn’t really have any bearing on if they’re unreasonably dangerous compared to other breeds or not, since it could be that people think them dangerous because they don’t like them, or it could be that they don’t like them because of them being dangerous.

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, can you clarify what part of OPs post is racism? Genuinely struggling with that connection.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you read the original article? It explains the racebaiting that goes on with pit bulls

        • Forester@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          The idiot I’m replying to believes that The genome of a animal directly correlates to that animals behavior potential for intelligence and general demeanor.

          Now where have I heard before that someone’s genetic makeup makes it so that they are not qualified to the same rights and privileges as the others. If this person believes that the parentage of a animal determines how a animal will live and act… That’s eugenics.

          Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

          • noride@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            To clarify, you are directly equating dog breeds with different races of humans so you can paint op as a eugenics apologist, and win an online argument about dogs? Did I get that right??

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              I dont see anywhere in the comment saying they’re making direct comparisons to specific human racial segregation. Just making an analogy using human racism as an example.

              I can see how someone might misconstrue that if they didn’t like the argument, though.

            • hiddengoat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Breed restrictions are a soft way of telling certain people that they’re not welcome by forcing them to choose between their pet and living in a given location.

              It’s redlining via an external factor that isn’t considered discriminatory. Some idiots look at a hard number “2,000 deaths in 30 years, OMG DANGER!” and refuse to accept the fact that per capita there are more dangerous dog breeds out there. But not by much, because the odds of you being killed by a dog are so preposterously low as to be irrelevant to your daily life.

            • Forester@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am merely reading the man statements at face value. Quote" “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”

              Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits"

              If you do not see that as the definition of eugenics then I don’t know what to say in regards to your assessment.

              • 520@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                We have been practicing eugenics on animals for literal centuries via selective breeding. We have shaped the designs of many a farm animal this way. Did you think poodles existed in the wild?

                • Forester@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sweetheart I’m not the one saying that the genetics of a being make up the beings responses. That’s you and your buddy. I’m over here saying that genetics does not define the responses of a being. For the uninformed this means I do not believe in the false science of eugenics.

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re missing the huge difference that humans arent selectively bred for specific physiological and behavioral traits reinforced over many generations. Theres no human race thats 10 times as small as they used to be with bulging eyes and breathing problems.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                mmm yeah really, 160cm isnt 1/10th of 184cm.

                compared to say, a chihuahua’s 3-6lb average weight up againt an American pit bull terrier average 30-60 lbs. Or 80 lb average North American wolf.

                • hiddengoat@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You really going to die on your braindead hill of “ten times bigger!” while ignoring actual evidence of you being an idiot?

                  Sounds about right.

                  • blazera@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You playing a half role in deciding who you breed with for one generation and having your own preferences in a mate is not the same as an organization controlling both halves of breeding over many generations with a well defined and consistent list of genetic traits being bred for, which is clear in the major magnitude of variance amongst sizes of different dog breeds, compared to human races.

          • V17@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Calling other people idiots and then continuing with the rest of that message is not a good look.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They didn’t even undergo 300 years of pit fighting.

        Handfuls of these dogs kept by handfuls of people engaged in pitbull fighting.

        The substantial majority of pitbulls out there were just living their life, living amongst families and children, not bothering anyone.

        And if they were bred to fight other dogs, so fucking what?

        You can read first-hand accounts from people who are involved in dog fight organizing who said over and over that dogs who are aggressive towards humans were banned from competition and often euthanized.

      • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of domestic animals can go feral, as cats will do as kittens, under one generation. Creating a dog breed requires a lot of intentionality — selective breeding and conformance to some kind of breed standard, like making some specific breed of fox into something that can live in a house.

        That’s not what is going on with pit bulls in 2023. Such as they can be defined, they’re usually selected for their capability to protect. And otherwise they’re bred randomly with other breeds and maybe lose that capability, but then they’re not pit bulls anymore. and to be honest nobody really knows what their capabilities are at that point. It’s a total mess, it’s nothing like concentratedly breeding non-aggressive, non-asshole foxes relentlessly until you can tolerate each other indoors.

        By the way I heard fox piss is… unsuitable for human co-habitation, is that still a problem?

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Cows kill more people than dogs. That does not mean that cows are more aggressive than dogs.

      Plenty of dogs referred to as ‘pitbulls’ are not particularly aggressive at all. Often they’re less aggressive than dogs of other breeds. All dogs were bred to be hunting dogs. They all have a prey drive. They can all hunt small animals. Some of the most aggressive dogs, are also the smallest, but a pekingese is less likely to cause serious damage. Being nipped by a pekingese is unlikely to merit a police report. (I say unlikely advisedly. Even small dogs can be dangerous.)

      The whole ‘pitbulls are aggressive’ line is a dangerous misconception. Here’s why:

      Predictably, someone encounters a pitbull type. They’ve heard all about ‘pitbulls’ being aggressive. But this dog is not even slightly agressive. It is a nice friendly dog. It is especially careful with the children. They go on the internet, and see a video of a child sleeping on a pitbull. The pitbull is incredibly careful with the child.

      “People are clearly exagerating how agressive pitbulls are!” “My pitbull is a sweetheart!” “Did you know pitbulls were known as nanny dogs! I read it on the internet.”

      But large powerful dogs aren’t dangerous because they’re aggressive. They’re dangerous because they’re large powerful dogs.

      The owner leaves a child alone with a large powerful dog. The dog is entirely unagressive. But then firework goes off, the dog panics, the child is in the way. The child tugs the dogs tail, the dog gives what would be a corrective bite for a dog but is far more serious for a child. The dog grabs onto the child’s hand, then doesn’t let go because he thinks it’s a game.

      Obviously, it goes without saying that you can train a pitbull type to be aggressive, just like you can train any dog to be aggressive. But gangmembers don’t typically train pekingese dogs to be aggressive just like the police don’t typically use a chihuahua to catch criminals. They want a dog that is dangerous because it is powerful and intimidating. They can train it to be aggressive and bite people if necessary.

      As a life long dog owner, who actually knows a bit about them, here’s how you solve the dangerous dog issue:

      • mandatory registration and chip
      • mandatory insurance
      • mandatory training at a reputable school (which will also inevitably train the human owner out of the ‘he wouldn’t hurt a fly’ nonsense or signal authorities if they notice the owner getting off on his dog being scary/dangerous)

      Banning pitbull types? A short term fix which will result in another breed becoming the next aggressive arsehole fashion accessory.

      • hiddengoat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        To a child a fucking dachshund is large and powerful. Leaving children alone with any dog is a parenting issue. I’ve seen my niece and nephew go from 0 to FUCKIN’RUNNIN’ROUNDSWINGIN’SWORDWOOOOOOOOO in .4 of a femtosecond and that shit would scare the fuck out of all but the most passive animals.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits.

      Which, of course, is completely natural and has nothing to do with their owners.

      I’m not going to say that Pit Bulls aren’t more dangerous than many other breeds… they are. Not just because of breeding, but also because of training and ownership.

      But any dog is more dangerous than no dog. Why not just ban dogs altogether? Might as well ban cars and kitchen knives, too, those are pretty dangerous. Hell, I’ve stabbed myself with pencils, too. Better get rid of those as well.

      Its not a problem that flat bans will solve. Ban pit bulls and they’ll just start breeding other violent dogs instead. Meanwhile all the mutts with a little bit of pit in them get thrown in an incinerator because people have no concept of nuance or depth. I’m sure you’re more than happy living with that.